what is the beggining of philosophy?

You didn't hurt my feelings one iota. And I am amazed that you think you have such a power over me. Your apology is not accepted. What you said, and you have agreed I interpreted it correctly, disrespects not only my emotions but you're own and everybody else's by implying that expressions of emotion are due to a weakness and a fault.

I was simply trying to restore the confidence of anybody who was influenced by such drivel and the way I put it was chosen for extra ummph!! and thus, hopefully, memorability. (i.e. justified). I'm not in favour of viewers here remembering that their emotional expressions are a sign of weakness and a fault because if that got about standing in the pub would be no different from Madame Tussaud's with beer and shagging a blow-up doll would be as good as the real thing.

It's the young viewers here you should be apologising to for gratuitously implying that there's something wrong with them whenever they express their emotions and leading up the garden path to the point, if your ideas become habitual, that their faces become set in a rictus which remains unaltered in every circumstance they meet.

Let's go back a bit--



You give yourself some fancy airs with that tripe rl. You couldn't trash the Bible to me if you were the Angel Gabriel himself. It is a task you are unequal to. But I am concerned with any trashing of the Bible because it might influence younger readers to eschew it and that would be against their interest. And that goes a thousand fold if the trashing is based on nothing but hearsay and second-hand, probably tenth-hand, cliches of a partial nature deriving from an attempt to justify sexual licentiousness.

If you want to see what sexual licentiousness looks like in all its raging glory try reading Henry Miller's Opus Pistorum or de Sade's Philosophy of the Boudoir and other essays. Why would anybody want watered down sexual licentiousness of the type approved by our regiment of Agony Aunts?

What, what ? far fetched that is...
What does sexual licentiousness as to do with the Bible having something to teach or not ?
Any book, be it by the positive or by the negative, or even more accurately by both simultaneously, has always something to teach, upon its readers...what else ?

Is it History ? Western Tradition and its underlying Philosophy ? Is it Moral perspective as a system in equilibrium ?
...There are more then one way to get a set of Rules to work...more the one system to get the very same equilibrium without the very same "speech".
History always makes its course beyond systems...

Again, Sexual licentiousness ???
Who´s to say what that gets to mean, whatever that is ? You ? The Bible ? L´air du temps ?
Well...I have a far more practical view...History tells !
A path is a path is a path...and what changes, was changed already...an a priori ontological fact !

Are you serious Fil? Obtuse or disingenuous? I said --"And that goes a thousand fold if the trashing is based on nothing but hearsay and second-hand, probably tenth-hand, cliches of a partial nature deriving from an attempt to justify sexual licentiousness."

That says nothing about sexual licentiousness having anything to do with the Bible. It is addressing attempts to justify sexual licentiousness by trashing the Bible and, by extension, Christianity and its teachings on sexual matters. The Bible is sexually licentious. Solomon is lascivious.

I'm not making any attempt to justify praising the Bible in order to prop up the Church's teaching on sexual matters. Nor to prop up the Church generally. It's the world's most famous and best selling book. And a must read for any westerner with any literary pretensions as I know some A2Kers have. Trashing it for personal reasons and without having studied it to some extent is out of order. On a philosophy thread at least where a tone is set, or should be, for lesser mortals to be guided by. You do agree I presume.

You cannot have failed to notice, surely, that those who do trash the Bible so casually are against the Church's teachings on sexual matters. I read their posts on other threads. They think they know better. And there's big money in it. Setting aside the Church's teaching on sexual matters, which would, incidentally, make sex less exciting, less special and less mysterious, is just what they think the doctor ordered.

But they are all only speaking for themselves you see. Setting aside those teachings, and scoffing at our foolish forbears for believing in such fairy tales and superstitious nonsense* throughout the length and breadth of the Christian world as a normal everyday occurence in history and literature lessons and other conversations something like the aliens scoff who have Cadbury's Smash mashed-potatoes watching an old movie showing how our best-beloved did it in the olde daze, is not a matter they have given the slightest thought to. No,no,no. They daren't give it any attention even when they are repeatedly and pointedly asked to. That's why they have me on Ignore. (Mom's Apron I call it.)

They know full well that if the whole of Christendom said "**** you Christ" and laughed at the images of Jesus for getting Himself into such a fine mess with a bunch of crazy ideas when he could easy have run off, this "thing" we have going would turn into a menagerie and in short order. Not wishing that, of course, they would need some "regulations" to prevent it. The masses are now free-basing. Which, need I add, they would compose. Party members special lanes on all roads. A special commission set up to investigate every known rail accident to see which compartment it is safest to be in and it to be painted a special colour. You dig my drift. Philosophers will have to produce philosophy the Party approves of. Or else.

So I reject the charge of "far-fetched" unequivocally. I reject Rex's use of those three words to describe the Bible.

* They usually prefer "bullshit" to "nonsense" but I'm sensitive about such terms.

Hi Spendius, Thank you for sharing your view points with me.
This is how I learn, “from others sharing their view points with me.
I have read and studied what you have shared with me. I can only hope that you would do the same for me!
I do have to admit that I am no great thinker but I have read your work and I do find you to be wise.
I do realize that I very well may the least among you but I do hope that you would consider my view points.

It does seem to me that you have read way, way, way, more into what I had said to you! If you would like to know exactly what I mean in what I say, "I would be glad to explain it, “if you would ask for more detail!

When I said that I was sorry for hurting your feelings I meant it!
Hurt feelings to me means the same as “up setting a frame of mind that you are in. When most people are in a normal frame of mind without emotions they seem to be able to hold a logical conversation.
Example when someone is crying and balling out loud it is very hard to hold a logical conversation with them when they are in that frame of mind! If you allow them to calm down then they may be able to respond with logic. There are many emotions and anger is one of them! We all use logic with every thing we do and I would be glad to prove it if needed.

Your quote : [Are you using the word to E-xpress some idea that it is a weakness or a fault or some ******* thing you have buzzing around your silly head like I'm some big girl's blouse and you are Clint ******* Eastwood. **** off.

Emotions are a very, very good thing but not always so good when having a logical conversation with someone

Your quote: [You didn't hurt my feelings one iota. And I am amazed that you think you have such a power over me. Your apology is not accepted

If I did not to offend you with what I said, Then I would doubt that you would have replied with such a vocabulary!

I have no power over anyone! “I do know that I am not perfect and I am ok with being a humble person and I also have no problem with being the least among you!


There is nothing wrong with being emotionally sensitive about terms people use but do you think that it is wrong to deny it?

Your Quote: {They usually prefer "bullshit" to "nonsense" but I'm sensitive about such terms}

I would like to have a logical discussion with you but I do not think that it would be possible unless you were willing to bring yourself down to my low level as I am the least among you great thinkers!

By the way the bible had a great deal with how my philosophy started! This may sound odd to many.

You did not hurt my feelings. Only actions can do that. Words never. Words are on the wind unless they proceed action. Nothing written on A2K hurts my feelings. Those who have me on Ignore have hurt feelings.

I explained my vocabulary. Call it added emphasis. A calculated effect. An attempt to show you that using that trick (don't get your knickers in a twist) is ill-advised in a philosophy discussion or, indeed, anywhere. It is cheapskate because it tries to get one up on somebody without any input of argument. I was trying to prevent the people who know you from being subjected to it as I presume they must have been so that they might come to have a higher opinion of you and then you might be cured of the sense of being the least among us which I think will improve your muscle tone and general demeanour thus allowing you to become a more socially acceptable person in those levels of society in which intelligent people gather.

Further, it is sneaky because getting the blow in first when you have the advantage of surprise is akin to bushwhacking. The gambit has been used on me countless times since I joined A2K. I could easily name the worst offenders but I prefer to spare them the shame.

It also flags up a paucity of wit and a mental state which has changed little since schooldays. "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" is the classic example of the genre. The barmaid in the pub just last night tried it on. "Are you in a better mood tonight spendi?" she said. I laughed. A bushwhacking with no lead on my skin is a laughing matter. As long as she displays 3/4 of her tits when bringing a glass up from the lower shelf she is allowed plenty of leeway which is an advantage you don't possess rl.

What I had done the previous evening was this. We have a system of futures purchases for pints. A £20 pound note buys 8 pints of John Smith's Extra Smooth with 10 pence change; which goes into the tin to help alleviate the distress of people fallen on hard times. It is convenient. It saves having a pocket full of almost useless coins and avoids the passing over of money and waiting for change on seven subsequent occasions. I consume two pints every night on the advice of my physician, which is American idiom for quack. So--the barmaid gets a piece of paper from the till roll and after a search for a pen she marks the paper 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 and 8. Then she crosses out the 1 to account for the pint she is serving me. Now-these numbers she had been writing in a small space in the top left hand corner of the paper which made tearing them off as each pint was served a tricky operation. So I had asked her to space them out more generously which she had done but not without pointedly saying "is that better? ". Which it was. Markedly. That was the extent of my supposed bad mood and the cause of her asking if I was in a better mood the next night. The chaps who overheard her last night, which was easy to do, sniggered and assumed I had been grumpy and moody earlier. "When is he ever not grumpy?" one dickhead spouted.

Does that little tale put you in the picture about your suggesting you had hurt my feelings. As if I am not aware of the dynamics of such a gambit.

I expect higher standards of discourse on an international philosophy forum than those appertaining in the last hour of the day in a D --D minus pub.

And your ingratiating self-denigrating abnegation is out of place too. The first thing even a putative philosopher needs is out-of-control, overweening self-confidence. Take Plato as an example.

Either you are sensitive to terms [words] or you are not, Can you have it both ways?
Your Quote: {They usually prefer "bullshit" to "nonsense" but I'm sensitive about such terms}


It is easily seen by everyone "that you prefer the highest degree of Masculinity "that you can personally achieve. This is seen in the terms that you use. You seem to repeat your masculine terms over and over again. "The ladies," "the brauds at the pub", "Clint fuc**** eastwood with his head in a women's blouse on and on you go with many terms like that. It would be nice to have a conversation without all of the emotions.

Bingo! Usually to cover up some sort of insecurity... Extremes terrified of the means.

That was irony rl. It was intended to cause a sardonic laugh. I'm sorry it didn't in your case.

I can do far higher degrees of masculinity than I have hitherto attempted.

I think I refer to the "ladies" and "broads" and such like because they are much the most important part of human society and are the exclusive cause of that vast catalouge of whiffling vexations and aggravations which come puffing across a man's canvas in a seemingly unending stream and for which there are no antidotes outside of monastic seclusion except doses of light-hearted banter which are not always sufficient.

Hypnosis, auto-suggestion, brow-beating and outright violence I consider to be the recourse of the misogynist.

The analysis is 100% scientific and has no emotional content. I think that, as a man, I am entitled to be masculine and I recognise the right of the ladies to be feminine. I wish they were moreso sometimes.

Patronising them is not an option.

Rex--I have already demonstrated that you are not qualified to take part in philosophical discussions. There is no need for you to keep reminding us of that obvious fact.

We all seem to have traits of the right stuff, you seem as though you may have more of the right stuff than others!
The right suff can at times be the wrong stuff, if you have to much of the right stuff you will not think that this is true because you would have a defect in philosophy.

http://74.6.238.254/search/srpcache?ei=UTF-8&p=ocpd+philosophy&fr=my-myy&u=http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=ocpd+philosophy&d=4571434475585698&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=2b20e082,9119f7b2&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=pYxfG4HCDkNMF491OxONVA--

spendi, Your perception of reality on the subject of man and woman has no basis in fact. Your supposed many readings have rendered you emasculated, and not a good judge of what can be considered gender knowledge. Your basic knowledge about the sexes have grown from your pub world experience; not a reliable source for knowledge.

Six silly and self-satisfying assertions is overdoing it a bit ci. Even for you. Philosophy is not your bag.

spendi, Your generalized criticism has no merit. Try detailing your opinion; I very much doubt you can.

Sadly probably the very first philosophical questions ever asked came out of superstition. Like a cave drawing about why the buffalo migrated or why the earth god ate the sun god. I tend to believe humans were religious before they became intellectual. It is easier to attribute things to the supernatural than to investigate and find the real reason why things occur as they do.

Yes you could be correct, I can see how it could have started some what that way! I wonder what Spendius would say about such a great philosophical explanation as that? I guess that it could be true that the god delusion did create the world as we know it. No pun intended Spendius!

Very true; when those beliefs started to develop, their understanding of life and their environment were at the earliest stages of development.

According to warped religious teachings drawn from the Hebrew scriptures, Adam was created as much like a god-man with (nearly) all knowingness about nature. He knew the divine names of the creatures, plants and God's own perfect language (logos). But, over time terrible sins crept into the human bloodline (Adam and Eve lost their spirit.) and made us dumber and that is why scientists exist. They are "supposedly" natural versions of de-evolved Adams. So the religious imply that we did not come from apes but we were created like, poof! and, fully intelligent and over time we became dumb and Jesus came and gave us his spirit and now we are now capable of being smart again, (provided we accept this gift of the holy spirit and the hogwash religion that accompanies it). In other words, exactly the opposite of the way the ascent of humanity really happened.

1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Comment: Apparently Christianity bought into this ludicrous idea too.

I have profound respect for CI and his "philosophy". While i was living with my head in the sand he was one of the few grounded and sane voices here on this forum.

Kinda funny an atheist calling a christian, "worldly". Comical those Baptists love those pub world experiences and chatting with one another at the liquor store. Must be all the "spirits".